USA Kamala Harris the 47th President of the United States - Hopefully.

Remove this Banner Ad

If you're wiping out Harris lead on RCP to say it's neck and neck, but quoting Biden and Clinton leads verbatim, seems odd.

The RCP average for Battleground states, without some recent favourable polls from one of the same pollsters they use, has Harris winning enough states to get to 270.

Yeah it's tighter than historical comparisons, but not a like for like.
Do do understand the concept of within the margin of error and outside of it?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

No, but to be frank, I really don't care.
lol

article-2525602-1A2B2A3600000578-553_634x408.jpg
 
I am kinda obsessed with Stokey to be honest. He's fascinating, a enigma hypocrite wrapped in riddle. All the consistency of an overcooked 2 minute noodle and a lack of self awareness so complete as to be almost profound.

I hope he's donating his body to science, a brain like that needs to be studied.
Too many concussions
 
No, I'm clearly an idiot
/s
Sometimes Im not aure. I mentioned the concurring polls of Biden and Hillary from this point in the rac because they were outside the margin of error but both races were still very tight on election day.

From an historical standpoint shouldnt we take it that Harris needs go be at least +8 to feel comfortable.

I also notice you dismissed the bit where Trump gets to 270. No wonder you criled over me dusnissing 1.8% which is once again within the margin of error.
 
Sometimes Im not aure. I mentioned the concurring polls of Biden and Hillary from this point in the rac because they were outside the margin of error but both races were still very tight on election day.

From an historical standpoint shouldnt we take it that Harris needs go be at least +8 to feel comfortable.

I also notice you dismissed the bit where Trump gets to 270. No wonder you criled over me dusnissing 1.8% which is once again within the margin of error.
I mean, if you think that polling organisations haven't changed their methods since 2016, then sure this might mean something, but also if you look at how Dems have been outperforming their polling in the past few elections (remember that so-called red wave?) then it might mean even less than nothing. Who knows?
 
I mean, if you think that polling organisations haven't changed their methods since 2016, then sure this might mean something, but also if you look at how Dems have been outperforming their polling in the past few elections (remember that so-called red wave?) then it might mean even less than nothing. Who knows?
So their changed methods produced similar results for 2016 to 2020 but now they've really got their act together.

Sad Please Please Please GIF by myHQ
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Makes it even more baffling where your 100% comes from.
Seriously?

I would have thought any decent, respectful human being already would be repulsed by Trump’s attitude to women before specific questions are mentioned.

My point is I’m kinda surprised anyone wouldn’t be, frankly.

Anyway I think I told myself to ignore your posts a few weeks back, so it’s been great, but bye.
 
Sometimes Im not aure. I mentioned the concurring polls of Biden and Hillary from this point in the rac because they were outside the margin of error but both races were still very tight on election day.

From an historical standpoint shouldnt we take it that Harris needs go be at least +8 to feel comfortable.

I also notice you dismissed the bit where Trump gets to 270. No wonder you criled over me dusnissing 1.8% which is once again within the margin of error.

Firstly, RCP, the source you brought up, currently has Harris at 270 based on their own averages. Check again.


You are unsure whether I'm an idiot or not, but I realise margin of error can go both ways (the + or -). And that margin of error also applies to polling leads that are greater than the difference of the margin of error from zero.

You just seemed to selectively use margin of error in a favourable way in one case, but left out that maybe the previous election leads were tighter than the polls suggested at that point in the race (instead just assuming they were on point for your point).

As I said, it's a different race, different candidates, different trends. Pollsters have also changed approaches from previous election cycles, though to be fair it wasn't always undercounting Republicans in every swing state. E.g. Arizona has undercounted Democrats in polling for recent cycles, which doesn't bode well for Trump given the slight lead or tie, unless they've made further adjustments.

But yes, I criled.
 
Latest polling indicates a slight lead to Harris in the Sun belt states, or a tie. So let's just call it even and say that she picks up 2 of the 4. Then she only needs to hold 2 of the 3 Rust belt states, in which she is leading.

Polling is polling. It's a snapshot in time of a group of individuals. So to be taken with a grain of salt for sure. However, the trend has been consistent for a while now.

Lots to play out, but plenty of reasons to be positive if you're Team Harris.
 
Latest polling indicates a slight lead to Harris in the Sun belt states, or a tie. So let's just call it even and say that she picks up 2 of the 4. Then she only needs to hold 2 of the 3 Rust belt states, in which she is leading.

Polling is polling. It's a snapshot in time of a group of individuals. So to be taken with a grain of salt for sure. However, the trend has been consistent for a while now.

Lots to play out, but plenty of reasons to be positive if you're Team Harris.
Yeah, it's tight. That's clear. It's just amusing to see people try and use current polling, especially given the trends, as bad news for Harris. Plenty of work to be done though.
 
Seriously?

I would have thought any decent, respectful human being already would be repulsed by Trump’s attitude to women before specific questions are mentioned.

My point is I’m kinda surprised anyone wouldn’t be, frankly.

Anyway I think I told myself to ignore your posts a few weeks back, so it’s been great, but bye.
Lol. the left in a nutshell. Its always a moral argument. decency resoect etc. How you could possibly support Trump. Yet they conveniently ignore they supported an even bigger womaniser and disrespector of women in Clinton. They ignore Biden's continual invasion of personal space with sniffing etc.

Trump I dont think js any better but jts not why I would vite for him.
 
Lol. the left in a nutshell. Its always a moral argument. decency resoect etc. How you could possibly support Trump. Yet they conveniently ignore they supported an even bigger womaniser and disrespector of women in Clinton. They ignore Biden's continual invasion of personal space with sniffing etc.

Trump I dont think js any better but jts not why I would vite for him.
whatabout whatabout whatabout

find new bots.
 
Lol. the left in a nutshell. Its always a moral argument. decency resoect etc. How you could possibly support Trump. Yet they conveniently ignore they supported an even bigger womaniser and disrespector of women in Clinton. They ignore Biden's continual invasion of personal space with sniffing etc.

Trump I dont think js any better but jts not why I would vite for him.
Not sure I'd characterise Trump as just a womaniser and disrespectful to women, but then I wouldn't characterise Clinton as just that either (I was 14 when he left office, didn't really follow US politics much then). If I were running the DNC, he wouldn't have been allowed to speak.

While Trump's predatory nature is horrible for the women involved, and sets a bad example, my main objections to him being President again are his policies, his judicial appointments and his fraudulent attempt to overturn the last presidential election, by denying Americans one of their greatest forms of freedom of speech.
 
Lol. the left in a nutshell. Its always a moral argument. decency resoect etc. How you could possibly support Trump. Yet they conveniently ignore they supported an even bigger womaniser and disrespector of women in Clinton. They ignore Biden's continual invasion of personal space with sniffing etc.

Trump I dont think js any better but jts not why I would vite for him.
Well against my better judgment I’ll respond, because I would say this is conservative groupies in a nutshell. Moral equivalence FMD.

Trump was voted in after his damning “grab them by the pussy” tape emerged.

So that’s all you need to know about RW barrackers.

Whatever you can say about Clinton’s apparent philandering, the shit didn’t hit the fan for him (ie Lewinsky) until he had already been re-elected.

I have no idea what you’re referring to with Biden but would just point out that you’re equating “invasion of personal space” with the actions of someone found liable for sexual assault.
 
He's saying that 100% of women should vote Democrat due to abortion. Do you know the % of women who have an abortion in the US? It's very far from 100% so clearly not a deciding factor for 100% of women.

Many women who have never had an abortion or will have one in their life time are still strongly in favour of them being available if needed. And it would absolutely be a deciding factor.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

USA Kamala Harris the 47th President of the United States - Hopefully.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top